Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Corinthians Aramaic primacy doubted...
#31
"hanpe" can mean "profane", perhaps that is why Saint Paul, used that term there and not the other, being led by the Holy Spirit to do so.

Peter 4:3 "For the time that is past was enough, when ye wrought the pleasure of the profane, in dissoluteness, and in ebriety, and in lasciviousness, and in revelling, and in the worship of demons. (Murdock)

It would read thus in 1 Cor. 12:2 "that ye have been profane; and have been, without distinction, led away after idols, in which there is no speech."
Reply
#32
Hi Thirdwoe,

Indeed; according to Payne Smith:
godless, ungodly, profane, pagan; heathen, gentile, Greek.

it is no longer related to the original post (off topic) but I rest my case. Holy spirit did not tell me how to translate but I tried to translate consistently.
(e.g. Acts 18:4 does not make sense as well, if pagans or profanes entered the synagogue)
I think that the meaning as from the 1st century has been garbled if we look at the current possible variations.

this link tells more about it

The religious vocabulary of Christianity and Islam
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/51920767/Nasarani-and-Hanif-by-F-de-Blois">http://www.scribd.com/doc/51920767/Nasa ... F-de-Blois</a><!-- m -->
page 21
Reply
#33
I think, as that study indicates, that the words can be interchangable, and based on the context, it could go either way. I'm sure you did the best you could do with what you could gather. What language are you translating the Peshitta text into? I think you told me once, but I think I forgot. Danish?
Reply
#34
distazo Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi Distazo.

Yes, it could go either way but I still think the gentile/pagan meaning is meant in this verse simply because the church is inclusive of all nations. There is no reason to single out Arameans or Greeks, as apart from the church.

This verse makes sense with Jews, Christians and Pagans (armaye...not Aramaye) as three distinct groups.

Thanks. I still have doubts in 12:2
you have been pagans (hanpe)
(Etheridge) that ye have been pagans ; and have been, without distinction, led away after idols, in which there is no speech.

So, if Armaye means 'pagans' why did Paul not use that word in 12:2?

Shlama Akhi

Khanpa in Aramaic means literally "denier", like the Arabic Khanaf. See <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1765&start=0">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1765&start=0</a><!-- l -->

Just like in English, there are many ways to say "unbeliever". Like pagan, unbeliever, idolator, heathen, etc.

In all languages there are many shades of meaning with synonyms like this. Khanpa, Armaya, Amma, etc. We try, when translating, to choose the best meaning within the context.

Within the context it makes no sense to single out Arameans or Greeks as apart from the "Church of God", since these ethnic groups were to be found within the Church. I believe the context here is one where it is listing faith groups. It makes sense to separate the (unbelieving) Jews and the Pagans from the Church, since both denied the Gospel.

+Shamasha
Reply
#35
Hi Paul,

Are you saying that Kapra (denier) and Hanpa (people, nation, gentile) are related?
Because, I cannot find any relation between the two.

Regards
Reply
#36
distazo Wrote:Hi Paul,

Are you saying that Kapra (denier) and Hanpa (people, nation, gentile) are related?
Because, I cannot find any relation between the two.

Regards

Shlama Distazo,

The very definition of Khanpa is "godless/unbeliever/profane/wicked/heathen/foreigner" and it is used as a derogatory term for "gentiles" and "nations" and "peoples" (i.e., anyone who wasn't a believer in God.) In those senses it is synonymous with Kapura (one who denies) and even "armaya" (gentile), depending heavily on the context. Shades of meaning between two different words can and do overlap. Khanpa has a shade of meaning that is "foreigner" ... Armaya also has a shade of meaning that is "foreigner" (specifically, foreign to the Jews).

One mistake translators make is simply relying on a dictionary to dictate the meaning of a word, and not allowing context to come into play. Context can, and should, force less-frequently used shades to take priority.

Khanpa/Armaya/Kapura/Amme, etc, are all closely related synonyms and are used interchangeably just as in the English "Gentile/Heathen/Pagan/Idolator", etc. Each has different shades of meaning, but all center around the lack of faith in the One God of Abraham.

Your question was regarding why one word (Armaya) is used over another (Khanpa), the answer is the same as it is in English - there is more than one way to say "heathen/pagan" in English, and likewise in Aramaic. (cf., the Greek rendering of "Khanpa" in 1 Corinthians 10:27 ... "unbeliever", or for Greek primacists, the Aramaic rendering of the Greek "unbeliever" is "Khanpa". (?pistos) describes someone who rejects or refuses God's inbirthings of faith (note the root, faith, 4102 /p?stis). Strongs Concordance.)

For "Armaya" = Pagan, see the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entry for ")rmy" - with attestation of the "pagan" meaning in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA), Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) and Syriac. References include both Sokoloff's A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and J. Payne Smith: A Compendious Syriac Dictionary page 29: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjps.php?jpspage=29

+Shamasha
Reply
#37
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Thank you for your patience! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
I've used several Dutch words as well, but tried to keep the same Dutch non derogative words for the same Aramaic ones. e.g. in 1 Cor 10:27 I used a Dutch word for 'outsider'. Not 'unbeliever' (Greek has apistos) because the (root) word 'believe' is not in the Aramaic as well.
Reply
#38
Does 'armaya' have room in its meaning for 'Greek'?

Can the Zorban modifications be justified?
Reply
#39
DrawCloser Wrote:Does 'armaya' have room in its meaning for 'Greek'?

Can the Zorban modifications be justified?

Hi DC.

It can be justified to an extent. It is gentile in general, so it can be applied to any ethnic group. It appears the translators took liberty to translate it to "Greek" where the context made sense for them to do so. It wound up making almost everyone a Greek, though, even in areas like Samaria and Syria, which is excessive.

In other places they left it as generic gentile. Note how this strengthens our theory about an underlying Aramaic source to these documents.

+Shamasha
Reply
#40
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi DC.

It can be justified to an extent. It is gentile in general, so it can be applied to any ethnic group. It appears the translators took liberty to translate it to "Greek" where the context made sense for them to do so. It wound up making almost everyone a Greek, though, even in areas like Samaria and Syria, which is excessive.

In other places they left it as generic gentile. Note how this strengthens our theory about an underlying Aramaic source to these documents.

+Shamasha


Ok, for me, Aramaic primacy is settled for this book, because of the Alexandrian variant (1:23) and because apostle Paul did not use 'yawnaya' (Greek / Hellenist) in 1 Cor. 1:22-23;10:32 like he did in Romans and Colossians.

Though, I feel like 1 Cor. 13:3 (I might boast, I might burn, I will burn, to be burned) are not sufficient to 'convert' a Greek primacist. (Step into their shoes for like a minute) The variations can be explained by scribal errors, deliberate modifications. The last reading can be explained that there was a revision 'so-it-makes-sense' (like [Byz.] manuscript 1505 reading 'it might be burned'.

I don't know if I am in error, may someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Does 1 Cor. 13:3 from the Aramaic primacy belief provide evidence to rattle the Greek primacist?
Reply
#41
Here's a list of superior verses which just make more sense in the Peshitta

I do not describe all differences, but give yourself some homework <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

1 Corinthians 1:23 (Greeks vs Gentiles)
1 Corinthians 2:4 (differs)
1 Corinthians 5:8 (
1 Corinthians 7:5 (Greek is vague here about lusts)
1 Corinthians 7:6 (Greek is vague)
1 Corinthians 7:14 (husband/the brother)
1 Corinthians 8:11 (Greek is vague)
1 Corinthians 11:20 (peshitta has 'one', while Greek has 'the same')
1 Corinthians 12:1,2,3 (Greek has there no sounds without sound, Peshitta no language is without sound)
1 Corinthians 14:10
1 Corinthians 14:12
1 Corinthians 15:2
1 Corinthians 15:8
1 Corinthians 15:33 (bad language spoils)
1 Corinthians 15:55
1 Corinthians 16:22
Reply
#42
ok, distazo here's what I found: (Color code is that green is evident Greek changes, but purple is confusing Greek changes, black is where Greek is fine, and red is misc.)

1 Cor. 2:4 - It is fine in the "Alexandrian" text-type manuscripts.
1 Cor. 5:8 - Greek unleavened of purity and truth instead of Peshitta leaven of purity and holiness. I do not understand the Greek variation.
1 Cor. 7:5 - It is a little dynamic equivalence there -- "lust of your bodies" changed to "lack of self control / intemperance" (Greek akrasia), but I see that the verse is fine in the Greek.
1 Cor. 7:6 - Greek has "This I speak as a concession" instead of Aramaic "This I say to the weak". Seems also like dynamic equivalence, so I see that it is fine.
1 Cor. 7:14 - Some other posts in this thread pointed out that that is an inter-Greek error.
1 Cor. 8:11 **
1 Cor. 11:20, 12:1-3 -- Did you cite the right verses? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
1 Cor. 14:10 - The Greek "There are, it may be" is strange compared to Peshitta "Behold, for". Also Peshitta "tongues / languages" replaced by Greek sounds. Indeed the Greek is strange:
Greek 1 Cor. 14:10 Wrote:"There are, it may be, many kinds of voices (or sounds) in the world, and none of them are voiceless(or soundless)."
Peshitta 1 Cor. 14:10 Wrote:"There are, it may be, many kinds of languages (or tongues) in the world, and none of them are without voice."
1 Cor. 14:12 - the Greek omits 'gifts'
1 Cor. 15:2 - Greek adds the conditional "if". In the Aramaic Paul is saying that they are mindful of the word he preached, but the Greek says, "if you keep in mind the word I preached to you". I read the entire verse from the Greek, it does seem difficult to understand.
1 Cor. 15:8 **
1 Cor. 15:33 **
1 Cor. 15:55 - I do not understand why Alexandrian Zorba did the variant.
1 Cor. 16:22 **

---------

Now I need your help for these:

1 Cor. 8:11 - I checked it, and it seems fine. May you please explain why you feel it is vague?
1 Cor. 15:8 - Seems the same in Peshitta and in Greek. What's wrong with the Greek version?
1 Cor. 15:33 Greek - "Don?t be deceived! ?Evil companionships corrupt good morals.? seems a lot better than the Peshitta version. Why is the Greek version more easier to understand?
1 Cor. 16:22 - I do not understand how Zorba could have blown it here, unless the different translations of marana tha or maran atha were deliberate. Please clarify this.

~ DC
Reply
#43
1 Cor. 8:11 -

Greek has 'adelphos' (the brother who is ill) and the ARamaic has 'The one who is ill.


1 Cor. 15:8 - Seems the same in Peshitta and in Greek. What's wrong with the Greek version?

This is my personal opinion about the word and idiom of 'aborted baby'. So we can skip this indeed.


1 Cor. 15:33 Greek - "Don?t be deceived! ?Evil companionships corrupt good morals.? seems a lot better than the Peshitta version. Why is the Greek version more easier to understand?

This is actually a good one.
Shawaytha?- vs Shawytha?. By adding an Ayin, the word Shawytha becomes Shawaytha (companionship). Also compare Matthew 15:11. (It's not so illogical as it sounds)

1 Cor. 16:22 - I do not understand how Zorba could have blown it here, unless the different translations of marana tha or maran atha were deliberate. Please clarify this.

This is a smoking gun that the Greek was translated from an Aramaic source.
Reply
#44
distazo Wrote:1 Cor. 8:11 -

Greek has 'adelphos' (the brother who is ill) and the ARamaic has 'The one who is ill.

Brother who is ill, are you sure that is correct Greek [context]? 'asthenwn' also means weak, feeble, without strength, powerless, etc.

distazo Wrote:
DrawCloser Wrote:1 Cor. 16:22 - I do not understand how Zorba could have blown it here, unless the different translations of marana tha or maran atha were deliberate. Please clarify this.

This is a smoking gun that the Greek was translated from an Aramaic source.

Ok, a little off the Aramaic-Greek discussion -- since two Zorbas got different readings, what is the correct rendering? Maran atha or Marana tha?
Reply
#45
Whether it's Marana or Maran? Don't you just agree it's a huge smoking gun?

About ill or not. It's not about this word, but about Greek has an added 'adelphos'. The Aramaic has 'the one' which has male gender so that also is a smoking gun of translation.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)